A New Source of Energy using Low-Energy Fusion of Hydrogen

Abstract

This paper describes the claim for energy production based on the so-called cold fusion effect. Reasons are given to explore this energy source based on the need for such clean energy and the observed behavior. Chemical energy alone has powered civilization until relatively recently when nuclear fission power based on uranium became available. Efforts are now underway to go the next step on this path using nuclear sources by harnessing the fusion of hydrogen. The first attempt using the so-called hot fusion method has not been successful in producing practical power. Furthermore, the required generator is expected to be impractical as results of its complexity and size even after the many engineering problems are solved. Perhaps a different approach is needed. Fortunately, a new method to cause fusion using a simpler method was recently discovered; only to be widely rejected because it conflicts with what is known about nuclear interaction. This paper addresses this issue by summarizing some of the evidence supporting such a novel fusion reaction.

It is an introduction on the subject, with some explanations on the human and scientific challenges behind LENR.

There are 38 references listed. 3 of them refer to the ‘general rejection’ of LENR by mainstream science (they refer to the books by Huizenga, Taubes, and Park). Yet Storms makes the comment:

“real and imagined error have distracted from the importance of these studies”

*without* giving any references. This is a technical flaw that should have not made it through peer review. If the ‘error’(s) is/are significant enough to distract, they are significant to reference. And yes, some of those would be my publications.

Storms present two figures to bolster his arguments. They are a figure of number of reports of tritium (T) and neutron (n) detection plotted as a function of T/n ratio (Fig.1) and a figure of number of reports of the heat-to-helium ratio that Abd has presented extensively in this forum and elsewhere, and which I have in turn claimed proves nothing.

The initial problem is that reading ref. 32 does not tell you what or where the data is. As far as I can tell, the only way one could track this down is via ref. 1 in the JCNMS paper:

From [32]: “The unambiguous nature of the detection of tritium shows that nuclear reactions can occur in deuterated palladium, a remarkable proof of the possibility of nuclear reactions in this system (see papers by F.Will et al. and T. Claytor et al. in [1]).

but that is not adequate referencing. For the interested reader, that means he/she has to read *all* the papers in the lenr-canr database to find the one or two that Storms uses to make his figures. References are supposed to be clear and point directly to the source data for these kinds of reference.

Storms says: “This ratio has been measured 17 times by four independent laboratories, the result of which is plotted in FIG. 2. This collection shows a range of values with an expected amount of random scatter. Of considerable importance, the average value is equal to about 50% of the value expected to result from d-d fusion. This difference is thought to result because some helium would be retained by the palladium in which the LENR reaction occurred. When efforts were made to remove all the trapped helium from the palladium, the expected value for d-d fusion was obtained [33].”

If you look closely at Figure 2, you will see the He/Heat values exceed the theoretical amount in some cases. I have previously commented in this forum on the related Figure from Storms book, which only had 13 numbers on it rather than 17, where I noted that the spread in the data indicates the precision of this measurement is too poor to allow one to make the conclusions Storms does. This hasn’t changed by the addition of 4 points.

The work by McKubre, et al, referenced as [33], provides a convenient hand-waving argument to explain why the mean of these values fall near 60% of the theoretical value, but certainly is not definitive. For one reason, it would need to be replicated several times before it can be incorporated into other studies as a mathematical fact, which it hasn’t. If it actually does explain the variation adequately, that needs to be referenced or directly documented, which it isn’t.

Storms says:

“The claim for helium production is easy to ignore because a significant amount is present in the normal atmosphere, which makes the sought-for helium easy to mistake for helium from this source. When this error is combined with the normal error in a calorimeter measurement, reasons to ignore the claim based on heat or helium alone can become overwhelming.“

Exactly so. So one shouldn’t try to work with these numbers until they are shown to be free of the errors Storms points out, which hasn’t happened.

He goes on to say:

“On the other hand, the energy/helium ratio does not have this problem. The independent errors in the He and power measurements are unlikely to combine and create a consistent value for this ratio unless the helium and energy both resulted from the same nuclear reaction.”

As I have noted the value is not consistent, thus the quoted statement is nonsense. Furthermore, until one defines the causes of the errors, one cannot just conveniently conclude they are independent. My CCS/ATER proposal has the potential of correlating the numbers for example.

Back to the new paper. Storms says: “Nevertheless, this commonly observed extra energy is consistent only with a novel nuclear process because the amount of energy frequently far exceeds any known chemical source as well as the expected error in its measurement.”

This is incorrect. I published a consistent, non-nuclear explanation of apparent excess energy signals, but of course Storms refuses to recognize this.

Storms mentions:

“Besides helium and tritium being produced, a complex collection of transmutation products is also occasionally reported. These nuclear products result from the nuclei of a hydrogen isotope entering the nucleus of a heavy element, such as palladium, and producing either a fragment of the target or a still heavier element [27-31]. Such nuclear products are very hard to justify when conventional understanding is applied. Nevertheless, many well-done studies report similar transmutation products.”

Heavy metal transmutation claims are based on the detection of heavy metals. This is relatively certain. What is not certain are the isotopic distributions, which always come from SIMS, since there is never any proof given that they spectra are correctly interpreted. SIMS of metal hydrides gives many MHx species signals, which could be incorrectly interpreted as isotopes instead of multi-atom species. Until an adequate description of these studies is presented, these transmutation claims remain unlikely. Contamination concentration is much more probable.

Overall, Storms continues to paint a rosy picture of the possibility of LENRs, while blithely ignoring relevant criticisms, further confirming the pathological science trait of not participating in the scientific process of critical review.

Disclaimer: As always these are my opinions, and are based on a quick read (by a person who has followed the field since 1995). If you see something wrong, say something. I can be corrected by good, rational arguments.

There's been a lot of talk about "wabbits" on coldfusioncommunity, but it's wrong to think of Abd as some kind of demented Elmer FUD... And although it was alleged he's been a recipient of IH's opaque donations , apparently that was just a hoaxed comment.

His site has been described as a "useless appendage" and "private echo chamber", but I don't necessarily agree... In between the in-depth Judge Judy T.V. reviews*, there's some good stuff:....

KS wrote:

There are 38 references listed. 3 of them refer to the ‘general rejection’ of LENR by mainstream science (they refer to the books by Huizenga, Taubes, and Park).

ABD: The books are references for the statement: “The special condition required to cause the LENR reaction is difficult to create. This difficulty has encouraged general rejection by conventional science [13-15] and has slowed understanding."

KS wrote:

If you look closely at Figure 2, you will see the He/Heat values exceed the theoretical amount in some cases.

ABD: No. In one case, the value is on the theoretical amount, but something must be understood about this data. If what is being calculated is the heat/helium ratio, and if the actual ratio is a constant, experimental error will cause greater deviation from the actual ratio if the produced heat (or helium) are at low values. I have never seen the data presented with careful consideration of error bars as they affect the ratio.

KS wrote:

I have previously commented in this forum on the related Figure from Storms book, which only had 13 numbers on it rather than 17, where I noted that the spread in the data indicates the precision of this measurement is too poor to allow one to make the conclusions Storms does. This hasn’t changed by the addition of 4 points.

ABD: Shanahan doesn’t know what he’s looking at. The “Storms book” he is referring to is Storms (2007). Figure 47 in that book is a plot of helium/heat vs excess power, for 13 measurements from two sources: Miles and Bush & Lagowski. The Miles data is more scattered than the Bush data. Miles includes one value with the lowest heat (20 mW). The associated helium measurement generates a helium/heat value that is an obvious outlier.

This newer histogram I think is from data in Storms book (2014), The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. Table 9 (p. 42) is a summary of values. There are 19 values. It looks like Storms has omitted one value (2.4 x 10^11 He/W-sec) as “sonic” (Stringham), one as an outlier (4.4), and maybe one as “gas loading,” (McKubre, Case), then perhaps has added one. Or maybe he left in the Case value (2.0).

KS wrote:

This newer histogram I think is from data in Storms book (2014), The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. Table 9 (p. 42) is a summary of values. There are 19 values. It looks like Storms has omitted one value (2.4 x 10^11 He/W-sec) as “sonic” (Stringham), one as an outlier (4.4), and maybe one as “gas loading,” (McKubre, Case), then perhaps has added one. Or maybe he left in the Case value (2.0).

ABD: It’s been confirmed. Maybe Shanahan should actually read my paper. After all, I cited his JEM Letter. It is not a “hand-waving” argument, but, obviously, this cried out for more extensive confirmation with increased precision. And so, I’m happy to say, that work has been funded and is under way. And they will do anodic erosion, I’m told, to test what is apparent from the two studies that did it (McKubre and Apicella et al, see my paper for references). These are the two studies where dissolving the surface of the cathode took the helium level up to the full theoretical value, within experimental error. Two other Apicella (Violante) measurements did not use anodic erosion, and results were at about 60% of the theoretical.

KS wrote:

Exactly so. So one shouldn’t try to work with these numbers until they are shown to be free of the errors Storms points out, which hasn’t happened.

ABD: Shanahan ignores that correlation can show relationships in noisy data. (This is routine in medicine!) Leakage, quite simply, doesn’t explain the experimental evidence. It could have had an effect on some individual measurements. No, we were not going to wait for “error-free” measurements, but rather how to proceed was obvious: the data shows quite adequate evidence to justify funding further research to confirm these results, and this is a replicable experiment, even if heat, by itself, is not reliable. The variability creates natural experimental controls.

KS wrote:

I published a consistent, non-nuclear explanation of apparent excess energy signals, but of course Storms refuses to recognize this.

ABD: Shanahan expects Storms to “recognize” Shanahan’s explanation as “consistent” with the evidence Storms knows well, when Shanahan, with obviously less experience, does not recognize Storms’ opinions, and merely asserts his own as valid?

Shanahan’s views are idiosyncratic and isolated, and he has neither undertaken experimental work himself, nor managed to convince any experimentalist to test his ideas. To the electrochemists involved with LENR, his views are preposterous, his mechanism radically unexpected.

Yes, I’m sure that response is frustrating. After all, LENR is anomalous, unexpected. However … Shanahan’s explanations are, generally, a pile of alternate assumptions, chosen ad hoc, and his claim is that they have been inadequately considered, but who decides what is adequate and what is not? Shanahan?

Wow…I thought we had dispensed with Abd’s garbage on this forum. Oh well…one more time…

ABD quoted me and wrote:

KS wrote: There are 38 references listed. 3 of them refer to the ‘general rejection’ of LENR by mainstream science (they refer to the books by Huizenga, Taubes, and Park).

ABD: The books are references for the statement: “The special condition required to cause the LENR reaction is difficult to create. This difficulty has encouraged general rejection by conventional science [13-15] and has slowed understanding."

My response: What’s yer point???

ABD quoted me and wrote:

KS wrote: If you look closely at Figure 2, you will see the He/Heat values exceed the theoretical amount in some cases.

ABD: No. In one case, the value is on the theoretical amount, but something must be understood about this data. If what is being calculated is the heat/helium ratio, and if the actual ratio is a constant, experimental error will cause greater deviation from the actual ratio if the produced heat (or helium) are at low values. I have never seen the data presented with careful consideration of error bars as they affect the ratio.

My response: As I put in my original disclaimer, I did this review quickly, and Abd has found a minor error I have made. Let me correct that now. What is funny is that once again, correcting my error places Storms in an even worse light.

Storms’ Figure 2 is an alternative presentation of the ‘heat/helium correlation’ idea. He plots the number of experiments obtaining a value for the number of He atoms/watt-sec that lies within a specified range versus the mid-range value for that ‘bin’, in a typical histogram approach. He overlays a Gaussian fit to the data as a curve on the graph. The number of experiments obtaining a He/heat value in the selected range is indicated by a pink box on the plot. Storms also adds a vertical black line on the plot, and labels it “D+D=He”. I observed pink boxes at larger values than the black line. My mistake was to imagine Storms was using the data from his book’s Figure 47, which does show 1 point above the theoretical line and to assume he’d added a couple more (which would be expected based on prior data characteristics). In fact there are several pink boxes at zero values and most are above the black line. Only 1 lies below. So, my mistake, Storms does NOT show any positive values above the theoretical line.

So, I have to ask, what happened to the data point from Figure 47 that was well above the theoretical line? Apparently, without telling anyone, Storms has rejected that datum. But that radically alters the interpretation of Figure 2. As I noted in other comments, that one datum alters the estimated standard deviation such that the 3 sigma spread encompasses the 0 line as well as going well over the theoretical line. It also swings the average up a bit. If you clip it out, you get a radically different picture, i.e. supposedly ‘all’ data points are now below theoretical (and we (meaning Storms and other CFers) have an ‘explanation’ for that). In my prior comments on Figure 47 from Storms’ book, I discussed why clipping out that high value was an illegitimate thing to do.

The functional difference is that including it leads to the conclusion the experiments are too imprecise to use in making the ‘desired’ conclusion. Excluding it means you can use the data to support the LENR idea. But which of these is forcing the data to a predefined conclusion do you think?

Abd said: “I have never seen the data presented with careful consideration of error bars as they affect the ratio.” – Perhaps, but I have discussed just that before, and now again in summary. Obviously Abd reads what I write, but apparently very selectively (which is typical of people looking to discredit something but not seeking to understand).

ABD quoted me and wrote:

KS wrote: I have previously commented in this forum on the related Figure from Storms book, which only had 13 numbers on it rather than 17, where I noted that the spread in the data indicates the precision of this measurement is too poor to allow one to make the conclusions Storms does. This hasn’t changed by the addition of 4 points.

ABD: Shanahan doesn’t know what he’s looking at. The “Storms book” he is referring to is Storms (2007). Figure 47 in that book is a plot of helium/heat vs excess power, for 13 measurements from two sources: Miles and Bush & Lagowski. The Miles data is more scattered than the Bush data. Miles includes one value with the lowest heat (20 mW). The associated helium measurement generates a helium/heat value that is an obvious outlier.

This newer histogram I think is from data in Storms book (2014), The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. Table 9 (p. 42) is a summary of values. There are 19 values. It looks like Storms has omitted one value (2.4 x 10^11 He/W-sec) as “sonic” (Stringham), one as an outlier (4.4), and maybe one as “gas loading,” (McKubre, Case), then perhaps has added one. Or maybe he left in the Case value (2.0).

“I think”? Yes, Abd is right, you have to guess at where it comes from. As I noted in my initial review, the referencing on this paper stinks. Where the data comes from is actually not specified, so you can’t check it. Abd makes some interesting guesses about where it comes from, and most importantly, he notes that Storms’ is picking and choosing what to look at. A clear recipe for making the data say what you want it to say, instead of what it actually says.

ABD quoted me and wrote:

KS wrote:

This newer histogram I think is from data in Storms book (2014), The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. Table 9 (p. 42) is a summary of values. There are 19 values. It looks like Storms has omitted one value (2.4 x 10^11 He/W-sec) as “sonic” (Stringham), one as an outlier (4.4), and maybe one as “gas loading,” (McKubre, Case), then perhaps has added one. Or maybe he left in the Case value (2.0).

ABD: It’s been confirmed. Maybe Shanahan should actually read my paper. After all, I cited his JEM Letter. It is not a “hand-waving” argument, but, obviously, this cried out for more extensive confirmation with increased precision. And so, I’m happy to say, that work has been funded and is under way. And they will do anodic erosion, I’m told, to test what is apparent from the two studies that did it (McKubre and Apicella et al, see my paper for references). These are the two studies where dissolving the surface of the cathode took the helium level up to the full theoretical value, within experimental error. Two other Apicella (Violante) measurements did not use anodic erosion, and results were at about 60% of the theoretical.

My response: The quote attributed to me is just what Abd wrote immediately above. Cut-and-paste malfunction. If Abd will actually use my quote I might be able to respond.

ABD quoted me and wrote:

KS wrote: Exactly so. So one shouldn’t try to work with these numbers until they are shown to be free of the errors Storms points out, which hasn’t happened.

ABD: Shanahan ignores that correlation can show relationships in noisy data. (This is routine in medicine!) Leakage, quite simply, doesn’t explain the experimental evidence. It could have had an effect on some individual measurements. No, we were not going to wait for “error-free” measurements, but rather how to proceed was obvious: the data shows quite adequate evidence to justify funding further research to confirm these results, and this is a replicable experiment, even if heat, by itself, is not reliable. The variability creates natural experimental controls.

My response: “Shanahan ignores…” No, I don’t. But Abd ignores the point that correlations derived from fictitious data (excess heat is likely not real) are worthless. For the record, I have been using statistics for many years, and Abd has added nothing to my knowledge base.

“Leakage, quite simply, doesn’t explain the experimental evidence. It could have had an effect on some individual measurements.” – And it certainly does. But in the ATER/CCS proposed mechanism there is a way to get increasing He signals in cells that show apparent excess heat. You all will also note that Abd does not respond to my specification that lab He concentrations need to be reported. Another thing he conveniently ignores.

“the data shows quite adequate evidence” – As I noted, that is true only if you start dropping out data that causes that conclusion to not be true. That’s bad science.

KS wrote: I published a consistent, non-nuclear explanation of apparent excess energy signals, but of course Storms refuses to recognize this.

ABD: Shanahan expects Storms to “recognize” Shanahan’s explanation as “consistent” with the evidence Storms knows well, when Shanahan, with obviously less experience, does not recognize Storms’ opinions, and merely asserts his own as valid?

My response: Read carefully here folks. Abd is pulling a fast one. He implies I ignore Storms’ opinions/conclusions. I don’t, I provide an alternative. I do not assert it is valid, I assert it has the potential to be valid. Like all proposed mechanisms, it must be confirmed experimentally, but that will never happen when the people who can do so refuse to accept it and instead resort to falsified representations of it to justify ignoring it. Abd’s response above is a veiled ‘call to authority’ (“Storms is the authority and Shanahan isn’t, so believe Storms”) which is recognized as an invalid logical technique, often used to intimidate others into silence. It has no inherent truth value.

At this point I can’t tell if this is Abd or Zeus46 writing, but whoever it is wrote:

“Shanahan’s views are idiosyncratic and isolated, and he has neither undertaken experimental work himself, nor managed to convince any experimentalist to test his ideas. To the electrochemists involved with LENR, his views are preposterous, his mechanism radically unexpected.

Yes, I’m sure that response is frustrating. After all, LENR is anomalous, unexpected. However … Shanahan’s explanations are, generally, a pile of alternate assumptions, chosen ad hoc, and his claim is that they have been inadequately considered, but who decides what is adequate and what is not? Shanahan?”

But these paragraphs are nothing but CF fanatic fantasies. There’s nothing in them worth responding to.

Abd said I should read his paper, so I did. Nothing but recitation of what others
say. He referenced a Powerpoint
presentation by a group of authors whose primary CFer is McKubre that details
some positive CF experiments (http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ApicellaMreproducib.pdf) that I'd like to comment on.

At the end in the background material there
is a slide that actually has a calibration equation on it for their
isoperibolic calorimeter. It gives
electrolyte temp as a function of input power.
The equation is: Telec = -0.1649
* Pin^2 + 5.3636*Pin + 24.337, and it has a multiple R^2 value of 1, implying
it is a very highly precise equation.
This can be reversed to predict Pin given the Telec values. I did it by computing Telec for Pin values of
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6W, and then using the Excel fitting routine for a
quadratic. I got this equation: Pin = .0022001*Telec^2 +.0060493*Telec
-2.6978, with an R^2 = .99997 (I’m not sure why it didn’t give 1.0, probably
round off error). Of course excess
power (Pex) is given by Pex = Pout – Pin, and in calibration we set Pout = Pin.

The question is what a small change in calibration constants
would do to apparent excess heat. So I
started with the McK equation to compute Telec for the Pin’s given above, then
changed the linear and quadratic term constants in the reversed equation by
+1%, and recomputed the ‘new’ expected Telec.
Then I went back to the original McK equation and computed the Pout
values for those new Telec’s. At 6W Pin,
the shifted equation gives an apparent excess heat of ~78 mW. In my Storms’ reanalysis, I found a +/- 2.5%
shift, which translates here to a 195 mW 1 sigma value (for 2.5% shift). Thus the 3-sigma band is +/- 585 mW, which
can be rounded up to 600 mW band. Thus
theoretically the excess power signal needs to exceed 600 mW to be ‘out of the
noise’ if a 1% CCS has occurred.

McK, et al have several slides claiming excess power. For example, their 3rd slide shows
an excess power peak from a flow calorimeter of ~90 mW in a spike, smoothed I
say more like 70 mW. This is
approximately the same magnitude as the 1% CCS effect.

Slide 6 show “Excess Power at SRI”. They seem to plot an excess power (very
noisy) and a smoothed version that apparently uses the right Y-axis based on
the figure legend across the top of the graph.
Those plots show peak values of ~55 mW (guessing at the units, since
they stated ‘Total Power = 214mW’), which is within the 1% CCS 1 sigma.

Their 8th slide shows more calorimetric results
for laser triggered experiments. They
plot energy and power on the same graph.
Of note is at the start the output power slightly exceeds input power
(i.e. positive small excess power signal) but it basically tracks the input
power, which is a good indication that the calibration is off or there is something else going on (Storms' first data set for Pt-Pt F&P cell work showed negative input power feedback due to ground loops). Later on, they get spiky output
power when input power is constant. The
spikes are about 190 mW peak values (~2.5 times the 1% CCS effect (or just a 2.5% CCS as found in Storms' results)).

So my point is that the apparent excess power/energy values
shown in these slides could *easily* be a very small CCS. It seems important to me that the reality of
these signals need to be determined and not just assumed to be real excess energy.

Since I am looking at the Apicella, et al, slides - some
other points:

In Slide 7, they state some conclusions which I find
contradictory. In the first line they
say: “(D/Pd > 0.9 in some cases also with less loading) have been observed
at ENEA.” Then in the 2nd
line they say: “We can conclude that high D loading is a necessary condition
for excess of power production during loading of Pd with D.” But if one can get apparent excess power at
<D/Pd=0.9, then it is incorrect to conclude that that is a requirement. Of course they don’t specifically say right
there that >0.9 is the requirement, but in Slide 12 they do. These slides were presented in 2005, and
today in 2017 the mantra is still “>0.9”.
I disagree, it simply takes a little more work to get the effect when
the Pd loading is <0.9.

In slide 10 they show some 4He results for laser-triggered
experiments. I note that the indicated background
level is ~0.55e16 and the strongest result is 1.05e16, i.e., less than 2X
background. I find that to be ‘working
in the noise’, and I require much more replication to be convinced this plot
shows anything of value. There’s also no
way to evaluate if these signals come from leaks or not.

Slide 11 shows results from the SRI “M4” experiment. I’ve noted elsewhere that I have looked at
the calorimetry of this run, and determined that it could well be affected by a
CCS. However, there is some *very* fancy
data workup going on here, and I require a full explanation of that to be able
to evaluate the data’s validity. I asked
McK twice for that info and never got it.
The He values plotted here never exceed the usual outside air value of
5.22 ppm, and there is no report of what the 4He concentration was in the lab
at the time the experiments were run, so we can’t honestly reject leaks once
again.

Their 4th slide shows excess power from the
Energetics lab that uses the “Superwave” on the input, and they don’t explain the
calorimetric method. The excess is about
2.5W on an input of 4W. This clearly
needs to be explained further, and the accuracy and precision clearly
established, especially when the “Superwave” is being used. Ditto on the 5th slide, which is
another Energetics lab results slide showing even greater apparent excess
power.

In slide 10 they show some 4He results for laser-triggeredexperiments. I note that the indicated backgroundlevel is ~0.55e16 and the strongest result is 1.05e16, i.e., less than 2Xbackground. I find that to be ‘workingin the noise’, and I require much more replication to be convinced this plotshows anything of value. There’s also noway to evaluate if these signals come from leaks or not.

kirkshanahan
: If you are interested in LENR and Helium please read the Lipinski patent US 20160118144 A1 (is a huge paper in fact). They did real-time measurements of helium to prove the reaction progress.

The highest COP (>3000 but needs some discussion) was attained with 100eV. I would no longer look at old stuff...

Just noticed something with the Storms' Figure 2 data we've been discussing. The count of experiments in the histogram bins goes like this 0, 2,3,7,3,1,0,0,0 and maybe one more zero. That totals to 16 on my calculator. The Figure caption says 'Summary of 17'. Wonder where the other point is? If you look, you can see that adding that extra point in somewhere is going to hurt the supposed Gaussian fit to the data. I guess in the 'Dictionary of Graduate Research Terminology' 'Summary of 17' means '16'.

But Abd wrote:

"This newer histogram I think is from data in Storms book (2014), The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. Table 9 (p. 42) is a summary of values. There are 19 values. It looks like Storms has omitted one value (2.4 x 10^11 He/W-sec) as “sonic” (Stringham), one as an outlier (4.4), and maybe one as “gas loading,” (McKubre, Case), then perhaps has added one. Or maybe he left in the Case value (2.0)."

So 'Summary of 17' might even mean 'Summary of 19'??? Putting that 4.4 in will really bollix the fit.

Wyttenbach
- I am not specifically interested in LENR and Helium. I am interested in proposed LENR reactions that occur in metal hydrides (and specifically metal deuterides and tritides) that can supposedly generate heat and radiation, as these products represent a safety hazard for me personally and for my coworkers. The patent you refer to doesn't fall in this bailiwick, so I'm not very interested. I suppose if there was a LENR that produced significant tritium, I'd be interested in that also as an alternative T production method. (I support the DOE's tritium processing facility at the Savannah River Site, and I personally work with most of the metals claimed to do cold fusion.)

This thread is about the idea that there is a heat-helium correlation 'proving' CF exists (Abd's favorite idea), and about the new Storms' article showing his failure to incorporate any of my criticisms, starting with my 2002 publication,